Become a Fan

December 30, 2013

Garland County, AR struggles with the after effects of breed specific law

Well, this didn't take long.

In June, a 5 year old boy was tragically killed by a Bull Mastiff in Garland County when the dog apparently reacted to the boy "acting out" in a tantrum.

In response to the tragedy, Garland County's Quorum Court passed a law that specifically targeted several breeds of dogs (not including Bull Mastiffs) as nuissance/vicious dogs. The law went into effect in October of this year.

Not surprisingly, the results of the ill-advised, and poorly-thoughout-out ordinance have been a negative and causing significant over-crowding at the Hot Springs animal shelter. (BTW, I do think it's interesting that the article here never mentions that the law targets specific breeds of dogs).

Now, dogs that are deemed to be one of the targeted breeds of dogs are taken to the animal shelter -- and now must be held until a trial can be held so a judge can decide if the dog is considered a nuissance or not. Right now, the trial dockets are being set at about 90 days out, which means dogs being held for trial are being held for at least 90 days at the shelter.

The result is that the shelter is being over-run with dogs awaiting trial, while other adoptable dogs are being killed at the shelter. So now, not only are the dogs that resemble targeted breeds dying at the shelter, but while those dogs await trial and death, dogs of other breeds are also dying due to lack of space.

Now, owners of the "high risk" breeds can pay a $500 fee so they can keep their dogs until the court date. This allows them to take the dog home which saves animal control the responsibility of caring for the animal, feeding the animal and taking up shelter space while the dog and owners await trial.

It seems unlikely to me that many owners will choose to pay such a high fee but at least it's a start.

Justice of the Peace for District 11 Larry Griffin notes that it's the best solution to the problem.

Well, no, not really. The best solution would be to go back and rethink the law in the first place. It would be get rid of the law targeting certain breeds of dogs -- which inevitably leads to dogs dying in shelters unnecessarily and no increase in public safety -- and instead, focus the laws on responsible pet ownership, and targeting aggressive dogs based on their BEHAVIOR, not breeds.

That would be the best solution. Everything else is just trying to cover up for the problem of a poorly thought-out law that is focused on the wrong "problem".

Comments

Getting rid of Larry and replacing him with someone smarter would help.

But if they want to use the bond system, why do people have to pay up-front? Why can't they just sign a surety? Up here, for example, if I pay somone's bail, I just sign an agreement to pay up if they skip. In this case, skipping would also solve the problem, wouldn't it?

It is unjust and totally inhumane to judge a being on the way it looks. The humans that make their dogs aggressive should be held accountable - should they be rounded up and jailed also (and euthanized when it becomes too overcrowded to house them)? The humane thing to do is return those targeted breeds of dogs (living beings) to their loving homes and judge only those along with their humans that are aggressive. Once we begin to hold the humans accountable for mistreating, abusing and teaching their pets aggressive behavior, the aggressive behavior will stop. Please rethink this inhumane decision.

I didn't know the dogs were held for trial. I had a terrible incident happen to my husband and me in November. The Garland County Animal Services killed a Pitbull that my husband and I wanted to adopt but weren't allowed to because of his breed. He wasn't violent. He was in there for being abandoned on a rental property with no food or water. He died even though he had a home that wanted him. Because of his breed.

If any person is in doubt about how dangerous pit bulls can be, just Google about them and read about all the innocent children who have been attacked by a family pet, which just happened to be the family pit bull. Now...do we love our children???

However, what research, science, and experts across various fields have proven time and again is that pit bulls are not more dangerous than other dogs and that targeting them with laws does NOT make communities safer.

Google is only as valuable as the person using it. If you type "Labrador attacks" into google you will get very different results than "Labrador, family pet". Same is true for pit bulls. I could find literally millions of stories of pit bulls as great family pets that never hurt anyone.

Anecdotes aren't data. And google is not a replacement for the opinions of experts in the field: including animal control officers, veterinarians, humane organizations, dog trainers etc.